Meden swimming pool

Download Word Document >>>
Report of Select Commission 1 (Housing & Environment)
To
Portfolio Holder for the Environment
For
Delegated Decision
On
7 July, 2010

MEDEN SPORTS CENTRE – SWIMMING POOL CLOSURE

1. SUMMARY

1.1 The intended Delegated Decision to ratify the closure of the swimming pool at Meden Sports Centre has been publicised since November 2009.

1.2 The opportunity for Select Commission 1 to test the rationale behind the confirmed closure decision, which itself has probably expended significant development time over many months, has been extremely limited between the publication of the Delegated Decision report and the original scheduled decision date of 22 June 2010. The opportunity for Select Commission 1 to consider the reason for the proposed closure has been limited to five weeks, although the decision has now been postponed until 7 July 2010.

1.3 The scrutiny review has revealed other associated issues which have raised concerns, and these are also mentioned within this report.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 On the closure proposal

(i) That the swimming pool remains open and that the efficiency saving as far as it relates to Meden swimming pool as contained in the General Fund Revenue Budget for 2010/11-2013/14 not be implemented.

(ii) That the Delegated Decision to close Meden Sports Centre swimming pool be deferred to allow for an extensive collaborative open investigation involving County, Parish and District Council elected members, together with any other interested parties, into the current facility management arrangements and any financial options, which the current time scale has not allowed.

(iii) That the planned budgetary savings of £70,000 be found from elsewhere from the Council’s revenue budget – the members of the Select Commission consider the ‘saved’ amount to be minutely small in comparison to the Council’s Revenue budget of £17 million, equating to 0.41% of the total.

(iii) That the decision to close Meden swimming pool be deferred until the review of Leisure management options is completed, which could have a significant impact and influence on any contractual arrangements for all of the Council’s leisure facilities.

2.2 Procedural – Corporate

(i) That the Council arrangements for Delegated Decisions referred to Select Commissions are managed in a way that allows the scrutiny responsibilities to be discharged fully within an adequate and mutually agreed time frame before the actual decision is taken.

(ii) That the Council asset management arrangements be reviewed in conjunction with a physical inspection of all properties to which the public have access and/or are occupied by Council employees. This would ensure:

(a) That adequate maintenance is being carried out.

(b) That all inspections are being completed, especially statutory obligations.

(c) That all registers in relation to inspection are accounted for and are being kept up-dated.

Included in this recommendation is the proposal that a Select Commission has an agreed responsibility for being included in such periodic inspections of, in particular, leisure facilities.

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 The closure of the Meden Sports Centre swimming facility has been considered and deferred since 2006. The decision to call-in the original closure decision in 2006 was successfully challenged and supported at Council by a Minority Report from the (then) Select Commission 2, which recommended the implementation of the Leisure Strategy but with one of the provisos being that “Meden Sports Centre is not closed until a full detailed review of the strategic implications is completed.” The detailed review has not been made.

3.2 The proposal within the same report that “a Select Commission be allocated the task of working with the relevant Portfolio Holder and officers” has never materialised.

3.3 The current closure decision was contained within the Budget 2010/11–14 development proposals, as one of a number of itemised ‘savings’ during the autumn of 2009. Select Commission 3 (Corporate) reviewed the budget and expressed their collective concern regarding the closure of the Meden swimming pool.

3.4 The decision to close Meden swimming pool was considered at Council on 28 January 2010 as part of the corporate budget. The actual closure decision was deferred for 6 months to allow for further investigation for alternatives to closure, although it is conceded that the Council budget was ‘approved’, therefore the closure by implication was supported . Members of the Select Commission request that this interpretation of the resolution on the Council budget is not applied to the proposed closure of Meden swimming pool.

3.5 Select Commission 1 members met with the Portfolio Holders for Resources and Environment, together with a number of Council officers, on 24 May 2010 to consider the report from the Head of Operations to the Portfolio Holder for the Environment for the Delegated Decision originally intended to be taken on 22 June 2010, but since postponed until 7 July 2010.

3.6 On 7 June 2010, members of Select Commission 1 visited Meden swimming pool and were given a comprehensive tour of the premises by the Leisure Operations manager. In the opinion of the Commission, the building is not hazardous but is visually neglected with poor, worn and dilapidated decoration (except the actual pool area), although everywhere is scrupulously clean and tidy, which is a credit to the staff. Many areas showed signs of temporary repairs with bright red plastic adhesive tape used extensively for a variety of these ‘repairs’. A list of examples, which is by no means exhaustive, is attached at Appendix A. The general condition of the leisure complex is poor, reflecting a lack of relatively cheap and simple maintenance (e.g. screws missing from metal grills, fastenings to doors not properly attached and holes and cracks taped over). Members were assured that recent surveys by Mansfield District and Nottinghamshire County Councils did not reveal the kind of serious building defects that could adversely affect the safety or integrity of the building in the short term.

3.7 An internal Council survey of the premises was commissioned in September 20091 which quantified defects and repairs supported by estimated costings. A further updated survey was made in February 20102 and a more comprehensive itemised schedule of costings was prepared. In comparing the original survey with the subsequent report costing schedule, there are significant increases in projected costs, including costs for work which according to the original report required “No Action”. One aspect of the revised costs is the increases. Examples can be found under ‘Structure and Fabric’ paragraph 3.4.2 female change – replace 2 lights” = £350, and also at 3.8.2 Disabled WC – new fan cover = £300. These revised prices appeared exorbitant to members of the Commission. An illustrative list is shown at Appendix B. The most recent costings present a far larger global figure for overall costs; they also include such items as “install new emergency lighting” at £10,000, which further inflates the overall maintenance figure. If these sorts of costs have been used to inform the decision for closure, then it may well be that the decision is flawed.

3.8 Immediately after the inspection of the Meden swimming pool, members re-convened at the Civic Centre and met with an Education Officer from Nottinghamshire County Council. The Officer, who is a member of the joint use management group, also accompanied the members on the Meden swimming pool tour. Members were advised that the current arrangements for the County Council to provide annual financial support were to be replaced imminently. Instead of an annual diminishing grant for maintenance and operating costs, this is to be replaced by approved funds already set aside by

1 Meden Options Appraisal Report (September 2009) 2 Addendum Report (February 2010)
the County Council and being disbursed countywide under the Local Management of Schools (LMS) scheme. It was explained that the new funding arrangements would allow for a grant towards leisure facilities both wet and dry, with specified amounts for each discipline. The grant is to be made direct to the appropriate school, which in the case in question would be Meden and that, subject to the school’s agreement for the pool facility to remain ‘open’, the entire County LMS grant would then be transferred to Mansfield District Council for appropriate use at the Sports Centre. The formula for the LMS grant would in reality generate a much greater amount of funding than the current system allowed. Members were also advised that a possible LMS figure of £70,000 for Meden Sports Centre would equate to £30,000 for the dry facility and £40,000 for the wet facility. The grant figure would be reduced by the entire wet facility amount if the pool is closed. The LMS grant would not see ‘wet side’ money being given or being able to be used for the ‘dry side’ facility.

3.9 Later during 7 June 2010, Select Commission 1 met at St Teresa’s church hall in Warsop, having extended an open invitation to Parish Councillors, the local County Councillor, District Councillors and anyone who could offer constructive evidence-based information to the Commission. A local action group ‘Save Our Swimming’ (SOS) led the counter-argument to closure, and presented a written report which outlined the group’s business plan proposals for the Meden swimming pool. One of their principal challenges to the pool closure was that although a figure of £70,000.00 has been given as an annual saving, the precise nature of the actual savings is not identified. The group also believes that by more creative marketing and exploiting unused day time educational use of the pool, greater revenue can be achieved. If the facility was used to its full open hours capacity, the group projected revenue would be in the region of £265,000, which is not a realistic operating figure since no leisure facility operates at optimum capacity for 100% of its time. ‘SOS’ published consultation figures which were based on an internet poll involving approximately 170 respondents (not all with Warsop connections), which demonstrated a majority in favour of retaining the pool with increased usage, and even with increased fees. It should be noted, however, that the Warsop population currently stands at approximately 12,000.

3.10 The Mansfield District Council 2009 structural survey on the Meden pool (with projected maintenance/repair costings) was also challenged by SOS, as it estimated over £1million would be needed. The group argue that in their opinion, immediate remedial work would cost £16,000.00. Although efforts had been made by the group to secure external funding, it was not possible to obtain grants for revenue shortfalls, although grants could be given for capital projects including re-build. The SOS group also intimated that the recent development by Bellway Homes, which the group believed could have gained £400,000 in line with new Section 106 charging, was a lost opportunity and that only £40,000 was realised. Subsequent enquiries by the Commission confirmed that the Council had in fact received £46,000 in receipts from Bellway Homes, and that this amount was in accordance with the (then) existing legal stipulations for Section 106 agreements. Section 106 funding arrangements have since been changed, which now have the potential to realise greater revenue for local authorities. The money from Bellway has been invested in Carr Lane Park on multi-activity equipment in line with the Section 106 contractual requirements.

3.11 There may be opportunities in the future where Section 106 funding in Warsop should include a requirement, or at least an opportunity, to invest in the Meden swimming pool, and that this should feature in Birkland and Meden Ward Plans.

3.12 Another aspect of outside funding is that of Local Area Agreement (LAA) reward money, which is disbursed by Nottinghamshire County Council. The Commission have been advised by an Education Officer of Nottinghamshire County Council that MASP (Mansfield Area Strategic Partnership) is to receive £349,000 for the Mansfield District area. Attempts by the Select Commission Chairman to verify this with the MASP coordinator have to date failed, but the coordinator appears to have shown personal interest in the Meden swimming pool issue which has then been linked to this funding source.

3.13 A further opportunity for exploiting use and income for Meden swimming pool (and also possibly for its recreational facilities) is that via the NHS. It has been revealed during this scrutiny work that some patients using a local Warsop surgery are being referred for physiotherapy (including swimming) to Creswell Leisure Centre. The scheme by Derbyshire PCT is in conjunction with Bolsover District Council, and is branded as an “exercise referral scheme” where GPs can prescribe leisure facility activity including swimming for their patients. There are between 150 and 170 referrals each month. Enquiries with Derbyshire PCT have also revealed that the leisure centres in Derbyshire are being structured as ‘activity hubs’ with specialisations in fitness, health, training and employment opportunities. Much of this work is coordinated via the Health and Wellbeing section of the LSP, and again it has been suggested that Warsop would be an ideal and convenient location to offer lifeguard and fitness training for the employment opportunities that regularly occur, particularly at Center Parcs in Newark. These opportunities obviously need further investigation.

3.14 Mr Alan Meale MP was invited to discuss with Select Commission 1 his views on the proposed closure. It was hoped that he would also expound on a pledge given in his election leaflet: that he would keep Meden open if re-elected. Unfortunately the lack of time between the publication of the closure report and the report by this Commission has not provided an opportunity in Mr Meale’s diary for the discussion, although he does remain willing to do so at a later and mutually convenient date.

3.15 The proposed swimming pool closure is intended for October 2010, to allow for the required period of ‘notice’ being given which is obviously 6 months into the current financial year. Therefore, it is assumed that 50% of the £70,000 savings will have been lost through the continued operation of the swimming pool. Members have been advised that the actual costs of £70,000 to be ‘saved’ are in fact funds spent from ‘reserves’, and therefore any ‘savings’ will be capital savings and not revenue ‘spends’.

3.16 If the scrutiny suggestion that the facility remains open even in the short term was realised, then the intended ‘savings’ in 2010/11 will only be £35,000 and the original £70,000 savings will probably be needed to be achieved from elsewhere. The alternative sourced £70,000 saving could then be continued into the 2011/12 financial year to allow for the more comprehensive and collective review of Meden Sports Centre by Council and community representatives, which is an alternative option being proposed by Select Commission 1 if the decision to keep the swimming pool open is not achieved.

3.17 The maintenance costs associated with the swimming pool have been presented as an unsustainable expense. It is argued by this Commission that maintenance should be found from within the existing planned preventative maintenance budget, which will not directly affect the leisure budget and is in the region of £200,000 annually. It should also be noted that £6,000 of the County Council grant is ring-fenced and accumulates annually if not spent for specific maintenance costs at Meden Sports Centre. Similarly, the proposed closure of the swimming pool will still require periodic access to the building to equipment that will remain ‘in use’ servicing the requirements of the entire leisure complex. It is speculation that although the building may be closed to the public, there is still the possibility that a charge may be incurred for accessing the leisure complex equipment. It is also noted that the building which is owned by Nottinghamshire County Council and Mansfield District Council is only terminating the lease, yet advice has been received that the District Council will incur closure and securing costs together with charges for keeping the facility ‘mothballed’. The opportunity to examine the contractual requirement for Mansfield District Council to incur closure and upkeep costs has not been possible within the time allowed. Figures of £60,000 have been quoted for securing and closing the swimming pool along with £10,000 annual maintenance costs, which exceeds any potential savings in the short term.

3.18 The Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme as it relates to Meden School will hopefully become clearer and perhaps even a reality which further increases the opportunity to secure swimming pool funding either within the new build or as a separate entity. If at all possible, the future of Meden Sports Centre and the Meden School need to be synchronised to offer the greatest opportunity and benefit for the community of Warsop.

3.19 Historically, the community of Warsop has always demonstrated a robust challenge to every suggested closure of the Meden Sports Centre facilities. There have been a number of petitions (3 in 2009/10) and public meetings where community resistance has been vigorously demonstrated.

3.20 The unilateral decision by Nottinghamshire County Council to reduce their financial support to Meden Sports Centre in 2001 as part of County-wide economies has resulted in Mansfield District Council being left to operate the leisure facility with steadily increasing financial liabilities.

3.21 The consequence of the incremental reductions of Nottinghamshire County Council funding is that this popular community resource over the subsequent years has attracted diminishing funding with absolute minimal maintenance and with no opportunity for any material improvements.

3.22 The Commission have examined the Meden Options Appraisal Report (September 2009) and the Addendum Report (February 2010) which gives a comprehensive commentary on the physical state of the Meden Sports Centre. These reports raise the following concerns:

• It appears that the building has suffered from neglect over an extended period of years, and even relatively minor repairs or replacements have not been undertaken.

• The costings for the itemised list of remedial work appear exorbitant and there is a significant variation in costs between the original survey report and the costing schedule shown in spreadsheet format.

• The question as to why a Council asset has been allowed to become neglected to such an extent must raise issues on building management, and there are comments in the survey reports which mention some inspection records missing without explanation. Also, just as importantly, there are no assurances given of what remedial action is being taken to restore or maintain the records in future.

• The scrutiny review experience has revealed apparent shortcomings in the Council’s ability to effectively manage its assets, and this report should also provide the catalyst for a full and detailed audit of the entire Council estate and how it is administered.

3.23 The circumstances in which the latest closure decision has been progressed is cause for concern to the Select Commission. Initially, the proposal was contained within the budget development papers in late autumn 2009. The Budget Working Group (Select Commission 3) did not support the proposal for closing Meden swimming pool. This was followed by the decision at Council for a six month deferment of the closure decision. The events should have prompted an awareness that the intended outcome was not only unpopular with elected members and with the community, but that there was also potential for resistance, albeit perhaps more sensitive than constructive.

3.24 It could be that a purely dispassionate financial decision for closure is the only option. However, there are issues embedded within the local community that are stimulated more by emotion than by economics or fact. It is suggested that the current stance of the Executive and the Warsop community adopting opposing views could have been avoided or at least mitigated by consultation, contribution and communication.

3.25 It is suggested that with the Executive having experienced the recent hostile reaction to closure together with the historical knowledge that previous efforts to close Meden have not succeeded, there should have been greater awareness of the potential for opposition and challenge which should have been predicted and managed.

3.26 The circumstances surrounding the development of the Delegated Decision are perceived by many in the Warsop community as not having being made in an open and accountable environment. It is suggested that it would have been prudent to have engaged in not just consultation, but collaborative working with the Parish, County and District Council elected members so the evidence in support of closure could have been examined and considered by a much broader group – the group may well have come to exactly the same conclusions, but would have the advantage of shared ownership of the final decision. Conversely, the same broad group would have had the opportunity to examine alternative solutions, which again would have exploited local support and interest in a more constructive way than a current situation which has now developed into opposition tactics. One obvious question remains: Nottinghamshire County Council have unilaterally reduced their contribution over the years, but have they ever been asked to assume responsibility for running the Meden facility, which after all is a “County – Leisure Services” obligation?

3.27 A collective ‘Meden Working Group’, perhaps with a Portfolio lead, would have demonstrated a much more positive, responsive and a more agreeable corporate disposition, irrespective of outcome.

3.28 Mansfield District Council has lost an opportunity to share a real financial dilemma with the community it serves, to explain the prevailing situation, to put the role of the County Council into context, and to seek a solution in partnership which would have avoided the strong possibility of the District Council alienating itself from an identifiable community, for an issue which represents less than 1% of the Council budget.

3.29 Mansfield District Council is now responsible for the termination of a leisure facility which was originally intended as a shared finance and use undertaking. The closure decision is the consequence of a decision taken many years ago that this Council was unable to influence or change at that time or since.

3.30 Conclusions

The Select Commission makes the following conclusions based on their own research and experiences, along with information provided by the Director of Housing, Property and Operational Services, the Head of Operations, the Leisure Operations manager, the Leisure and Cultural Services Manager and an Education Officer of Nottinghamshire County Council. It should be noted that the help and assistance received has been generously given and has been appreciated. The Commission has also listened to the voice of the community in a public scrutiny meeting held at Warsop, which included representatives of the ‘Save Our Swimming’ (SOS) group.

The Commission’s conclusions are:

(a) Meden swimming pool is a popular amenity for the Warsop community.

(b) The proposed savings from closure are disproportionately small when compared to the size of the Council budget and the benefits the pool offers, especially to educational need as well as social/recreational activity.

(c) The ongoing costs in maintenance could (and should) be found from the existing planned preventative maintenance budget as well as from the contribution from Nottinghamshire County Council, which forms part of their facilities grant.

(d) The decision to close the swimming pool appears to have been developed with little consultation.

(e) That the extent and the cost of the repairs appear inflated.

(f) The repairs are disproportionately large due to neglect.

(g) That the option of shared ownership and costs does not appear to have been explored.

(h) That an invitation for the Warsop Parish Council to make a modest contribution to Meden through the Parish Council precept has not been forthcoming.

(i) That further financial support from Nottinghamshire County Council has not been pursued to a successful conclusion.

(j) As an alternative to (i) above despite the involvement of the Managing Director in the LMS scheme, it has not been introduced since a formal outcome is still awaited.

(k) That the NHS/PCT be approached to seek GP referrals, including swimming, to the Meden Sports Centre.

(l) In the BSF programme, the pool has not been perceived as an existing or replaceable asset and therefore will not be included in any ‘new build’ of Meden School. An assured future for the pool could harness local popular community support to raise funds over a number of years to help provide a new pool in conjunction with the replacement Meden school development, which would be financially advantageous within the re-build costs.

(m) That the asset management arrangements/building inspection and recording regime within the Council be reviewed.

4. OPTIONS AVAILABLE

4.1 To support the Delegated Decision for closure of Meden Sports Centre swimming pool.

4.3 To not support the swimming pool closure, but to seek a full and open examination of all the circumstances surrounding the maintenance and operation of the facility, and then to make an informed collective decision. Such a proposal would also allow time for swimming pool funds to be raised, particularly by exploiting the community support that has developed since closure has become a more realistic possibility. Any delay in the decision would also allow the Leisure Management Options review to be concluded with Meden being an integral feature of the Council’s leisure facilities.

5. RISK ASSESSMENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPTIONS

Risk Risk Assessment Risk Level Risk Management
Financial That to keep the swimming pool open will incur avoidable expense. High The closure of the swimming pool will realise significant savings for the Council.
Reputation That the closure of the swimming pool will alienate the local community. High The facility is popular within Warsop and serves the needs of local schools. The decision to close the pool needs to be a collective one involving the community to mitigate the unpopular outcome.
It is recognised that the Rebecca Adlington Pool offers swimming facilities although not as convenient to the Warsop population as ‘Meden’.
Legal Pool closure is catered for within the terms of the lease agreement with Nottinghamshire County Council Low With the required 3 month notice period given the pool can be closed.

6. ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL PRIORITIES

6.1 It is difficult to determine how the closure of the swimming pool at Meden Sports Centre is compatible with the Council’s priorities. The only option would appear to be that with closure, the financial savings achieved can be interpreted as ensuring effective leadership and management, although this will not be fully appreciated or understood by the community of Warsop.

7. IMPLICATIONS

(a) Relevant legislation – The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and the Local Government Act 2000 allows local authorities the discretionary power to provide recreational facilities beyond statutory requirements and to promote the social, economic and environmental well being of their area.

(b) Human Rights – None

(d) Climate change – None

(e) Crime and Disorder – If the swimming pool is closed then this will be one less facility available to the youth in the community, particularly to engage in worthwhile healthy activity which may then adversely impact on existing public behavioural problems on the streets and estates of Warsop.

A particular associated issue concerning the youth of the community would be that the river Meden may once more become an attractive but dangerous amenity for swimming, which has inherent safety, environmental and wildlife issues.

The closed swimming pool building will become a vulnerable target for crime and vandalism, theft, arson and graffiti in particular, which will then incur remedial Council expenditure. Any unoccupied and apparently neglected building will inevitably attract unwelcome attention, as Bath Mill and the Ridge have experienced in recent times.

(f) Budget/Resource – There are apparently £70,000 worth of annual savings that could be realised from closing the pool. There will be some ‘one off’ expenditure associated with the closure, which is considered disproportionate to the alienation that this Council will suffer from this unpopular decision in its present form.

The £70,000 worth of savings should be found from elsewhere within the Council budget to allow the facility to remain open until such time as a more open and collective assessment has been made.

8. COMMENTS OF STATUTORY OFFICERS

(a) Head of Paid Service – Staff affected by the proposed closure of the swimming pool will be considered for redeployment or redundancy as set out in the Council organisational restructure policy procedures.

(b) Monitoring Officer – By a Deed of Gift dated 6 September 1969 the pool building, which had been paid for by Sir John Eastwood, was gifted absolutely by Sir John Eastwood to the Warsop Urban District Council (now incorporated in Mansfield District Council) on behalf of the inhabitants of Warsop.

By a lease dated 4 June 1973 between Nottinghamshire County Council (NCC) and Warsop Urban District Council (WUDC), the land upon which the pool was built was leased to WUDC in consideration of the expense incurred by WUDC in erecting the pool. The term of the lease expired on 31 July 1986, but was extended to 31 July 2000.

Mansfield District Council is now holding over under the lease of 4 June 1973 and is required to serve three months notice on NCC expiring at any time to bring the lease to an end.

(c) Section 151 Officer – On 28 January 2010, the Council approved a budget which included a saving of £70,000 in relation to Meden Leisure Centre and that the saving identified for the wet facility at Meden Leisure Centre be delayed for six months to enable a Working Group of Warsop councillors to investigate the possibilities for funding the wet facility; the cost of this delay being met from General Fund revenue reserves. Should the decision be made to delay this saving further or to find the £70,000 from elsewhere, in order for the Council to have a balance General Fund revenue budget the alternative saving or funding needs to be identified.

The current unallocated General Fund balances as reported to Council on 22 June 2010 stand at £3.272 million which is below the level approved in the Medium Term Financial Strategy level of £3.75 million and therefore these are not available as a source of funding at this time.

The projected deficit on the General Fund for 2011/2012 is currently £1.3 million in addition to any reductions in Government funding identified in the Comprehensive Spending Review due in the Autumn and any additional reduction in investment income as a result of interest rates remaining lower for longer and any continued reduction in fees and charges income as a result of the expected slower growth in the economy. Not implementing this saving would further add to the deficit affecting services elsewhere.

9. CONSULTATION

9.1 Prior to the publication of the closure report, the Council has responded to local interest and there have been two public meetings at Warsop. Some Parish Councillors with other interested individuals have been involved in producing an alternative business plan.

9.2 Select Commission 1 has been unable to start its own work on the Delegated Decision until the report from the Head of Operations was published on 19 May 2010. The Forward Plan has shown that the Delegated Decision is planned to be taken on 22 June 2010.

9.3 The opportunity for Overview and Scrutiny to fulfil its obligations to this piece of work has been seriously jeopardised by the timing of the publication of the report and the decision originally being scheduled for some 23 working days later. By comparison, any ‘called in’ decision has a statutory review period of 6 weeks.

9.4 There is a need that where issues are known and/or intended to be referred to Overview and Scrutiny there is a negotiated mutually convenient time line to allow, not only for the decision-maker to come to a preferred outcome, but also for the Select Commission to fully undertake its role and responsibilities. The existing arrangement for setting delegated decision dates is not conducive to good democracy and management.

10. BACKGROUND PAPERS

None.

Report Author - John Johnson
Designation - Democratic Services Officer (Overview & Scrutiny)
Telephone - 01623 463135
E-mail - jjohnson@mansfield.gov.uk

24.6.10

Download Word Document >>>